Murkanen:Uh, no. If I build a computer and that computer is used to program the next Mars lander, I can't be said to have been the source of the Mars lander programming. Similarly, even if some flavour of deity poofed evolution as the mechanism to further the development of life, that deity can't be claimed to have created anything. All of the creation was the result of evolution without the aid of the deity beyond the "Here, you do this" at the beginning.

What kind of idiot god would create life and NOT give it the ability to adapt?

Murkanen:Uh, no. If I build a computer and that computer is used to program the next Mars lander, I can't be said to have been the source of the Mars lander programming. Similarly, even if some flavour of deity poofed evolution as the mechanism to further the development of life, that deity can't be claimed to have created anything. All of the creation was the result of evolution without the aid of the deity beyond the "Here, you do this" at the beginning.

God, being of unlimited epistemological position, will know the outcomes of his actions. You, being of limited epistemological position, will not. We can rightly say God created where you didn't because his knowledge of what would be created by his action represent a willing of those things over the alternatives - an act of creation. The same cannot be said about your computer.

zeph`:1. All existing things are were either caused to exist or not caused to exist.2. No things are uncaused.3. There must be a first cause.4. That first cause is a god.5. Evidence of existing things are evidence for the first cause, namely god.

ninjakirby:There are some species which propagate themselves via cloning, to a degree. (SCIENCE!)

Nope, that is not the same thing as what I am referring to. There are asexually reproducing animals like hydras and other creatures--that is nothing new. But no species exists for long with just one member. The probability that any particular mutation would be lethal would be exponentially higher with such a small genome.

1. All existing things are were either caused to exist or not caused to exist.2. No things are uncaused.3. There must be a first cause.4. That first cause is a god.5. Evidence of existing things are evidence for the first cause, namely god.

Let's look at the logic.

1. All existing things were either caused to exist or not caused to exist.

OK, I can give you this one.

2. No things are uncaused.

K.

3. That first cause is a god.

*record screech* Say what?You still need evidence. You have none.

Also, there's this problem:

1. All existing things were either caused to exist or not caused to exist.2. No things are uncaused.3. If "god" exists, he/she/it must have been caused.

Oh hey. How about that.

Neither physics nor religion can demonstrate entirely how the universe was created.

But, physicists are at least trying to explain why the universe exists (and how it exists) instead of just pointing at the unknown and saying "God did it!"

Everything that isn't God, and God simultaneously causes his own existance and nonexistence at every single point in time.

That's way too complicated.

Time is a function of our universe. If God created the universe, God also created time, and therefore exists outside of time. Since God's existence is outside of time, from our point of view he has always existed, and always will.

Have you ever thought that maybe evolution of the brain resulted in the belief that a God exists? Think about it and then read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet

Now consider the following:

1.) Patients fortunate enough to awaken from a coma typically have no concept of time and experience almost continuous lucid dreaming.

2.)The brain uses electrical signals to convey the senses.

3.)The "God Helmet" uses unbiased electrical signals, stimulating a specific part of the brain in no particular manner. 80 percent of his participants experience a presence beside them in the room, which they variously say feels like God or someone they knew who had died.

4.)Maybe Spinoza wins the argument and your perception of God was just an artifact of evolution that served a purpose at some point in time, earlier in the evolutionary path of homo sapiens.

CDPThe planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory. Yet, there is no life on Mars.

So the fact that my head has all the conditions necessary to provide lice with the spark of live, and yet there are no lice present at this time means that there were never and never will be lice? In fact that would mean that if my hair follicles were people they would believe that lice could never exist...

But then again look at all the people around you, some of them have lice, can we take that as proof they exist? Or is that person just Intelligently Gifted?

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (I)(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.(2) I say the universe must have a cause.(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.(4) Therefore, God exists.

zeph`:1. All existing things are were either caused to exist or not caused to exist.2. God is not uncaused.2. A god has the power to bring himself into existence.3. God caused God to exist.

Okay that was probably a troll, but I'll bite anyway:

1. All existing things are were either caused to exist or not caused to exist.2. The Universe is not uncaused.2. A Universe has the power to bring himself into existence.3. The universe caused the universe to exist.

This "logic" fails equally well no matter what you substitute for God, whether it be Universe, Zeus, FSM, Satan, Shiva, Luke Skywalker, Inara, etc.

PC LOAD LETTER:What if he typed out the words in the images, would that be more forceful a counter-argument?

Not necessarily. I just generally disagree with the whole idea of too-easy-counter-arguments. If you can't construct a valid counter-argument yourself you might as well not argue, because you probably don't understand what's actually wrong with the argument.

Look, Heisenberg had it right. Or not. We may or may not be vibrating strings of energy on a two dimensional surface projected into a 5 dimensional universe that is but one of an infinite number of universes that randomly occur in an infinite superspace...I can almost see why the poor dears get overwhelmed. But then, why can't they just admit "I don't understand this at all, so I'll let those of you who are smarter do the teachin', and I'll go back to driving fenceposts" or whatever. I suppose the ego, that enemy of logic and reason.

zeph`:PC LOAD LETTER: What if he typed out the words in the images, would that be more forceful a counter-argument?

Not necessarily. I just generally disagree with the whole idea of too-easy-counter-arguments. If you can't construct a valid counter-argument yourself you might as well not argue, because you probably don't understand what's actually wrong with the argument.